Why I'm against the term "Medicare for All"

[Hortensis]

3. That's why most of the candidates' variations

keep workplace insurance as an option. Sanders’ totalitarian version is hardly the only one.

The Medicare for all label is actually brilliant because people are comfortable with Medicare, believe they know what that label means, and are reassured. It suggests no big change, even for a dramatically, hugely different version like Sanders’. That’s why other candidates kept the label but made important changes.

Of course, any national healthcare program that provided the benefits of the ACA to the entire populace would be very different from Medicare, which my husband and I are both on, so we are hardly fooled. We purchase 4 additional policies to bring it up to the coveragestandards of the ACA and still need eye and dental insurance.

Even though Medicare is not even in the slightest degree a socialist program, using for profit providers, forcing virtually all Americans onto one government plan would be an extremist move, one the ACA carefully avoided in order to leave Americans the freedom of choice. Of course, the developers in the ACA believed most Americans with eventually migrate of their own choice to the public option as the best.

But it’s important to always have freedom and choice. — and notably competition. With what survived of workplace insurance, secured by union actions primarily, when the republican party was in power they would have a harder time convincing Americans the government insurance plan was the best it could be if their neighbors were doing better with private insurance. Without competitive coverage to compare to, ...